A criminal case registered under provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (PCM) Act, 2006 against the groom, his parents and the parents of the minor girl cannot be quashed merely because the couple is currently living happily, the Karnataka High Court has said.
“Criminal responsibility is measured at the moment of commission, not neutralized by subsequent domestic peace. To accept otherwise would be to turn criminal law into a matter of retroactive validation through sentiment. Parents who should be blessing their daughters with encouragement, education, and empowerment are instead blessing them with early marriage. If such behavior were given a court marriage,” the court would remain an observed uprooting of a child.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while refusing to quash a case registered in 2021 under the provisions of the PCM Act against the groom, who was 27 at the time of marriage, his parents and the parents of the minor girl, who was 16 at the time of marriage.
Pointing out that the provisions of the PCM Act do not make only the parents of the bride and the groom liable, the court said that when the marriage was solemnized in a temple, both the temple authorities and the priest who conducted the ceremony could be held liable under the law. Likewise, the court said that when the marriage took place in a marriage hall or any other place, its management and intermediaries could not claim exemption from liability.
Show notification
Since “the pernicious practice of child marriage must be firmly eradicated”, the court said the Child Development Project officials should ensure that awareness of criminal liability is displayed at every place where marriages are routinely performed.
Temple offices, marriage halls and similar establishments should post notices that the marriage of a girl under 18 years of age was prohibited by law and had criminal consequences. Even the print and electronic media, being vital tools of public awareness, must also play their role in sensitizing the society as eradication of child marriage was not just a statutory objective, it is a constitutional imperative, the court said.
In the present case, the court refused to recognize the accused’s claim of ignorance of the law, pointing out that they all worked and married after the girls turned 18. However, the court said that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
“The law protects childhood so that it can blossom into informed adulthood. This court will not allow that protection to be weakened,” the court noted while rejecting the defendants’ motions.
Published – 16 March 2026 21:04 IST
